This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
Not entirely sure what it stands for, but I saw "nn-website" in the deletion reason for an article. What does "nn" stand for? I cannot seem to find any documentation on it anywhere. Thanks, I am a bit confused... -- Cyclone103 ( talk) 21:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks much! -- Cyclone103 ( talk) 22:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I would like to add another 3rd level heading titled "Redirection" with the following text:
Lots of AfDs already result in redirects, and it's already listed as an option at WP:BEFORE. I think adding this section would reduce unneccessary nominations. Does anyone have any objections/comments? -- Explodicle ( T/ C) 17:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
This doesn't strike me as a controversial suggestion, but I'll mention it and not make the edit to the project page - it strikes me that the "Alternatives to deletion" section could have a sublede briefly stating and echoing Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, something to the effect of "there are processes for which the Articles for Deletion process is not a substitute:" along with a policy shortcut of WP:AFDNOT which is somewhat more intelligible than just WP:ATD, giving editors the option of choosing the shortest shortcut or the most explanatory one. Шизомби ( talk) 18:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Deletion needs to be decided by someone who has knowledge within the field. Academics are required to decide if an academic topic notable. Pokemon expert for Pokemon articles. What one person considers not significant another group may consider important. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
(undent) No one is recommended we get rid of what we have just that we should add to it. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary, we should not be using our personal knowledge to make decisions like this, rather we should be using our documented best practices and the content of the article and its sources. For the same reason we avoid original research we should be making decisions based on knowledge we can all understand. The only thing one should need to be an expert in is the policies and guidelines of Wikipedias and the expectations of the community. Chillum 00:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
More than 1 month has passed since the original Lar ( talk · contribs) proposal ( see above).
The community consensus seems to be against (a very rough head count is 31 support ; 54 oppose, FWIW), but it seems there is enough community split and concerns to warrant a compromise between the camps. A number of alternative proposals have been put forward. At least one of these, that of defaulting to keep and semiprotect (COI warning: proposed by myself) seems to have some generic support in both camps, even if it is not without problems -most importantly, it requires also a change in the protection policy.
I think we should move on to act on the policy so that we can settle the thing. Two main issues are on the stake:
- Given the above consensus, the wording of the policy should make clear that we default to keep always, unless in the case of non-consensus BLP where the subject explicitly requests deletion?
- Given that above, should we semi-protect or take other proactive measures on non-consensual BLPs?
I invite discussion. Just a note: this is not the place to discuss again the issue of "default to delete" vs "default to keep" again: consensus for now has been established above. This is the place to discuss how to move from there.
Thanks. -- Cyclopia talk 14:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I actually clarified the wording to reflect what seems the outcome of the previous discussion about "default to delete". I already know this is going to be reverted in a few seconds and rain a lot of fire on me :) but please come here and discuss what to do. -- Cyclopia talk 17:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we should reiterate that admins should not delete articles on the basis of MfD's that have no consensus. "No consensus" for something is a terrible reason to do that something. I am not sure how such an idea gained popularity in a community that values consensus based decisions. For deletions without consensus we have WP:CSD. Chillum 00:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Do I correctly infer that there is a chunk missing from the archive? Page 36 of the discussion starts with an "Alternative No. 3," but I don't see alternatives #1 and #2 on page 35. Also, the only thing from User:Lar that I see that resembles a proposal is more like a summary of a proposal by somebody else.
Finally, I might note that the section title ("Non consensual BLPs") is ambiguous, because it could refer either to BLPs that exist without the consent of the subject, or to BLPs with no consensus to delete. Because Wikipedia articles can have a lasting effect on the outside world, the former ought to be deleted, regardless of what the consensus is to do about the latter. 69.251.180.224 ( talk) 00:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be reasonable to rename this page Wikipedia:Deletion, without the redundant "policy" qualifier. As far as I know, no other policies have the word "policy" in their title, so I'm not sure why it's needed here. That said, it isn't a big deal. – Juliancolton | Talk 13:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone explain to me why this AfD is reasonably causing anyone "emotional distress" etc.? Where can an editor appeal such arbitrary implementation of this policy? -- Kendrick7 talk 14:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Changing policy based on the whim of an administrator in a single case is a bad idea. Better to get the administrator to account for themselves. Skomorokh 00:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
← It hinges around the word 'harm', which means different things to different people. In my opinion, clear harm to people tends to trump convenience for editors, etc. I'm not sure how someone could unscrupulously blank a page (to what end?), maybe you could elaborate. I'd rather not get into the game of enumerating circumstances, though, as there are always valid exceptions to these from time-to-time and there are times (privacy, safety, personally identifying information not covered by oversight, potentially damaging commentary) where it is simply prudent to do so. If two editors disagree over a courtesy blanking, it would likely be handled like any other editorial dispute, barring some of the reasons I just gave - Alison ❤ 06:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Ignoring whether or not the blanking was proper, I note that, statistically, a single action does not make a trend. I agree with Skomorokh here: if you have any issues, take them up with the admins involved. If you want to make changes to this page, please start a discussion and point us at some demonstrable proof that your change does, in fact, reflect common practice. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 05:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion on WT:PROD about a dramatic change on WP:PROD that maybe interests people watching this policy. -- Cyclopia talk 10:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering, say for some odd reason, an administrator deleted WP:NAS. Would this delete all of the subpages too, including WP:NAS/R and WP:NAS/D? -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Undeletion In the case of pages deleted as a result of summary decisions and not following community discussions, undeletion may be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. It serves two primary functions: the restoration of uncontroversially deleted content and...
Shouldn't the last phrase read either: "...the restoration of uncontroversial deleted content and..." or "...the restoration of controversially deleted content and..." depending on the precise meaning intended? "[P]ages deleted as a result of summary decisions and not following community discussions" suggests that the deletion was controversial (ie "controversially deleted content) but that there is some uncontroversial material on the page (ie "uncontroversial deleted content"). Any clarification appreciated! -- Jubilee♫ clipman 23:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I started an article that was speedily deleted. I had questions over the notability of the person but didn't think that it was so bad that it had to be speedily deleted. The article was about a real estate agent (Sharona Alperin) who was a rock star groupie and had a song named after her. She has been the source of occasional articles for over 15 years, not just a flurry of articles at once then nothing.
The purpose of this section is not to discuss keep or delete in that specific article.
The purpose of this section is to seek alternate solutions to this event. I can think of several solutions:
1. If an administrator closes an article as speedy delete and is challenged from a valid standpoint, the administrator will be blocked, ban, whipped, and/or sent to jail. I oppose this.
2. If an administrator wants to close an article as speedy delete and it gibberish and vandalism, the article is deleted as vandalism. This already happens and is not disputed.
3. *** If an administrator wants to close an article as speedy delete and there could be valid reasons for disputing the decision, the admin will move the article to userspace and continue the AFD for at least 24 hours.
Relevant discussion involving three MfD cases is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfCs in userspace. Question was posed by User:Casliber: "...have we ever discussed how long is a reasonable amount of time to develop and/or leave a made-up-and-loaded RfC in one's userspace before it should be by rights deleted as an attack page? (i.e. "put-up-or-shut-up" rule?)" thanks, IZAK ( talk) 22:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The proposal is simply this. Limit "Nomination for deletion" tagging to 10 a day for each user. That is no user (including admins) can tag more than 10 pages a day for deletion. We do want to have some conent on WP, no? -- Zarutian ( talk) 01:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The proposal in the previous section seems too rigid as there may be good reason to delete large numbers of articles at once. For example, a botnet might direct a wave of spam at us and extraordinary measures would then be required. But we might usefully say something about the way in which such mass deletions are best handled. For example, please consider the following proposal:
Colonel Warden ( talk) 20:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, I've reverted the BLP prod section here (just found it, I thought it was going to happen via a separate policy (currently showing up as proposed) rather than here. In any case, I object to changing this without a final discussion of the implementation. In particular I feel that anyone using a sticky prod should be obligated to search for sources themselves first (ie WP:BEFORE). I think the majority of editors here would agree with that even though the working group went a different way. In general for major changes like this the working group's final work gets reviewed by a broader group. See the de-admining proposal for example. The same thing should happen here. Hobit ( talk) 18:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
<Deindent> Quickie summary No. 2 of Wikipedia talk:Sticky prod policy#WP:BEFORE seems pretty clear that the word "encouraged" (or less popular but still acceptable "should") should be included in this. Do you disagree? Hobit ( talk) 19:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't even know why I have this on my watch list but I certainly didn't expect to see multiparty edit wars over deletion policy. I've protected the page for a week; this should be sufficient time to determine whether there is consensus for the proposed change. Sandstein 20:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The way to enforce BEFORE is to make it a WP:AGF assumption that one has done it before nominating. People that that repeatedly nominate articles for AFD which are often proven quickly to be notable or otherwise quickly pass whatever the nomination claimed failed the article should be warned and editor dispute resolution (Wikiquette or RFC/U) should be brought forward. But it otherwise impossible to enforce BEFORE for every AFD that is brought. -- MASEM ( t) 20:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, given the lock-down of the article I think it would make sense to discuss exactly what text is desired here. I (obviously) favor an RfC on the topic, but don't feel that as an opposer I should be selecting the proposed language of the RfC. Is this the language supporters want? Hobit ( talk) 20:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Biographies of living people
Wikipedia now requires biographies of living people created after 18 March 2010 to indicate at least one source. New unsourced biographies of living people can be proposed for deletion. Unlike standard proposed deletion, these articles must contain a source before the tag can be removed. If the article remains unsourced after 10 days (in contrast to 7 days for a regular proposed deletion), the articles can be deleted. After adding the deletion tag to an article, the user must notify the creator or main contributor. Before adding deletion tags, editors are encouraged (but not required) to search for sources.
If the article is deleted, it may be undeleted when an editor is prepared to add a source. The undeletion can be requested either through the deleting administrator or at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.
---
- Biographies of living people
Wikipedia now requires biographies of living people created after 18 March 2010 to indicate at least one source. New unsourced biographies of living people can be proposed for deletion. Unlike standard proposed deletion, these articles must contain a source before the tag can be removed. If the article remains unsourced after 10 days (in contrast to 7 days for a regular proposed deletion), the articles can be deleted. After adding the deletion tag to an article, the user must notify the creator or main contributor. Before adding deletion tags, editors are encouraged (but not required) to make a good faith search for sources.
If the article is deleted, it may be undeleted when an editor is prepared to add a source. The undeletion can be requested either through the deleting administrator or at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.
---
Other suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit ( talk • contribs)
The page protection does not need to and should not last a week. There have been enough stall tactics and delays already. And the suggestion to have another RFC is completely ludicrous and should not be given any further consideration. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 21:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Discussion is taking place about the wording of the sticky proposal at WT:STICKY. Input would be much appreciated, particularly from editors with experience of writing and maintaining policy and dealing with BLP issues. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk contribs 23:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
Not entirely sure what it stands for, but I saw "nn-website" in the deletion reason for an article. What does "nn" stand for? I cannot seem to find any documentation on it anywhere. Thanks, I am a bit confused... -- Cyclone103 ( talk) 21:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks much! -- Cyclone103 ( talk) 22:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I would like to add another 3rd level heading titled "Redirection" with the following text:
Lots of AfDs already result in redirects, and it's already listed as an option at WP:BEFORE. I think adding this section would reduce unneccessary nominations. Does anyone have any objections/comments? -- Explodicle ( T/ C) 17:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
This doesn't strike me as a controversial suggestion, but I'll mention it and not make the edit to the project page - it strikes me that the "Alternatives to deletion" section could have a sublede briefly stating and echoing Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, something to the effect of "there are processes for which the Articles for Deletion process is not a substitute:" along with a policy shortcut of WP:AFDNOT which is somewhat more intelligible than just WP:ATD, giving editors the option of choosing the shortest shortcut or the most explanatory one. Шизомби ( talk) 18:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Deletion needs to be decided by someone who has knowledge within the field. Academics are required to decide if an academic topic notable. Pokemon expert for Pokemon articles. What one person considers not significant another group may consider important. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
(undent) No one is recommended we get rid of what we have just that we should add to it. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary, we should not be using our personal knowledge to make decisions like this, rather we should be using our documented best practices and the content of the article and its sources. For the same reason we avoid original research we should be making decisions based on knowledge we can all understand. The only thing one should need to be an expert in is the policies and guidelines of Wikipedias and the expectations of the community. Chillum 00:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
More than 1 month has passed since the original Lar ( talk · contribs) proposal ( see above).
The community consensus seems to be against (a very rough head count is 31 support ; 54 oppose, FWIW), but it seems there is enough community split and concerns to warrant a compromise between the camps. A number of alternative proposals have been put forward. At least one of these, that of defaulting to keep and semiprotect (COI warning: proposed by myself) seems to have some generic support in both camps, even if it is not without problems -most importantly, it requires also a change in the protection policy.
I think we should move on to act on the policy so that we can settle the thing. Two main issues are on the stake:
- Given the above consensus, the wording of the policy should make clear that we default to keep always, unless in the case of non-consensus BLP where the subject explicitly requests deletion?
- Given that above, should we semi-protect or take other proactive measures on non-consensual BLPs?
I invite discussion. Just a note: this is not the place to discuss again the issue of "default to delete" vs "default to keep" again: consensus for now has been established above. This is the place to discuss how to move from there.
Thanks. -- Cyclopia talk 14:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I actually clarified the wording to reflect what seems the outcome of the previous discussion about "default to delete". I already know this is going to be reverted in a few seconds and rain a lot of fire on me :) but please come here and discuss what to do. -- Cyclopia talk 17:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we should reiterate that admins should not delete articles on the basis of MfD's that have no consensus. "No consensus" for something is a terrible reason to do that something. I am not sure how such an idea gained popularity in a community that values consensus based decisions. For deletions without consensus we have WP:CSD. Chillum 00:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Do I correctly infer that there is a chunk missing from the archive? Page 36 of the discussion starts with an "Alternative No. 3," but I don't see alternatives #1 and #2 on page 35. Also, the only thing from User:Lar that I see that resembles a proposal is more like a summary of a proposal by somebody else.
Finally, I might note that the section title ("Non consensual BLPs") is ambiguous, because it could refer either to BLPs that exist without the consent of the subject, or to BLPs with no consensus to delete. Because Wikipedia articles can have a lasting effect on the outside world, the former ought to be deleted, regardless of what the consensus is to do about the latter. 69.251.180.224 ( talk) 00:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be reasonable to rename this page Wikipedia:Deletion, without the redundant "policy" qualifier. As far as I know, no other policies have the word "policy" in their title, so I'm not sure why it's needed here. That said, it isn't a big deal. – Juliancolton | Talk 13:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone explain to me why this AfD is reasonably causing anyone "emotional distress" etc.? Where can an editor appeal such arbitrary implementation of this policy? -- Kendrick7 talk 14:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Changing policy based on the whim of an administrator in a single case is a bad idea. Better to get the administrator to account for themselves. Skomorokh 00:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
← It hinges around the word 'harm', which means different things to different people. In my opinion, clear harm to people tends to trump convenience for editors, etc. I'm not sure how someone could unscrupulously blank a page (to what end?), maybe you could elaborate. I'd rather not get into the game of enumerating circumstances, though, as there are always valid exceptions to these from time-to-time and there are times (privacy, safety, personally identifying information not covered by oversight, potentially damaging commentary) where it is simply prudent to do so. If two editors disagree over a courtesy blanking, it would likely be handled like any other editorial dispute, barring some of the reasons I just gave - Alison ❤ 06:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Ignoring whether or not the blanking was proper, I note that, statistically, a single action does not make a trend. I agree with Skomorokh here: if you have any issues, take them up with the admins involved. If you want to make changes to this page, please start a discussion and point us at some demonstrable proof that your change does, in fact, reflect common practice. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 05:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion on WT:PROD about a dramatic change on WP:PROD that maybe interests people watching this policy. -- Cyclopia talk 10:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering, say for some odd reason, an administrator deleted WP:NAS. Would this delete all of the subpages too, including WP:NAS/R and WP:NAS/D? -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Undeletion In the case of pages deleted as a result of summary decisions and not following community discussions, undeletion may be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. It serves two primary functions: the restoration of uncontroversially deleted content and...
Shouldn't the last phrase read either: "...the restoration of uncontroversial deleted content and..." or "...the restoration of controversially deleted content and..." depending on the precise meaning intended? "[P]ages deleted as a result of summary decisions and not following community discussions" suggests that the deletion was controversial (ie "controversially deleted content) but that there is some uncontroversial material on the page (ie "uncontroversial deleted content"). Any clarification appreciated! -- Jubilee♫ clipman 23:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I started an article that was speedily deleted. I had questions over the notability of the person but didn't think that it was so bad that it had to be speedily deleted. The article was about a real estate agent (Sharona Alperin) who was a rock star groupie and had a song named after her. She has been the source of occasional articles for over 15 years, not just a flurry of articles at once then nothing.
The purpose of this section is not to discuss keep or delete in that specific article.
The purpose of this section is to seek alternate solutions to this event. I can think of several solutions:
1. If an administrator closes an article as speedy delete and is challenged from a valid standpoint, the administrator will be blocked, ban, whipped, and/or sent to jail. I oppose this.
2. If an administrator wants to close an article as speedy delete and it gibberish and vandalism, the article is deleted as vandalism. This already happens and is not disputed.
3. *** If an administrator wants to close an article as speedy delete and there could be valid reasons for disputing the decision, the admin will move the article to userspace and continue the AFD for at least 24 hours.
Relevant discussion involving three MfD cases is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfCs in userspace. Question was posed by User:Casliber: "...have we ever discussed how long is a reasonable amount of time to develop and/or leave a made-up-and-loaded RfC in one's userspace before it should be by rights deleted as an attack page? (i.e. "put-up-or-shut-up" rule?)" thanks, IZAK ( talk) 22:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The proposal is simply this. Limit "Nomination for deletion" tagging to 10 a day for each user. That is no user (including admins) can tag more than 10 pages a day for deletion. We do want to have some conent on WP, no? -- Zarutian ( talk) 01:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The proposal in the previous section seems too rigid as there may be good reason to delete large numbers of articles at once. For example, a botnet might direct a wave of spam at us and extraordinary measures would then be required. But we might usefully say something about the way in which such mass deletions are best handled. For example, please consider the following proposal:
Colonel Warden ( talk) 20:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, I've reverted the BLP prod section here (just found it, I thought it was going to happen via a separate policy (currently showing up as proposed) rather than here. In any case, I object to changing this without a final discussion of the implementation. In particular I feel that anyone using a sticky prod should be obligated to search for sources themselves first (ie WP:BEFORE). I think the majority of editors here would agree with that even though the working group went a different way. In general for major changes like this the working group's final work gets reviewed by a broader group. See the de-admining proposal for example. The same thing should happen here. Hobit ( talk) 18:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
<Deindent> Quickie summary No. 2 of Wikipedia talk:Sticky prod policy#WP:BEFORE seems pretty clear that the word "encouraged" (or less popular but still acceptable "should") should be included in this. Do you disagree? Hobit ( talk) 19:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't even know why I have this on my watch list but I certainly didn't expect to see multiparty edit wars over deletion policy. I've protected the page for a week; this should be sufficient time to determine whether there is consensus for the proposed change. Sandstein 20:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The way to enforce BEFORE is to make it a WP:AGF assumption that one has done it before nominating. People that that repeatedly nominate articles for AFD which are often proven quickly to be notable or otherwise quickly pass whatever the nomination claimed failed the article should be warned and editor dispute resolution (Wikiquette or RFC/U) should be brought forward. But it otherwise impossible to enforce BEFORE for every AFD that is brought. -- MASEM ( t) 20:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, given the lock-down of the article I think it would make sense to discuss exactly what text is desired here. I (obviously) favor an RfC on the topic, but don't feel that as an opposer I should be selecting the proposed language of the RfC. Is this the language supporters want? Hobit ( talk) 20:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Biographies of living people
Wikipedia now requires biographies of living people created after 18 March 2010 to indicate at least one source. New unsourced biographies of living people can be proposed for deletion. Unlike standard proposed deletion, these articles must contain a source before the tag can be removed. If the article remains unsourced after 10 days (in contrast to 7 days for a regular proposed deletion), the articles can be deleted. After adding the deletion tag to an article, the user must notify the creator or main contributor. Before adding deletion tags, editors are encouraged (but not required) to search for sources.
If the article is deleted, it may be undeleted when an editor is prepared to add a source. The undeletion can be requested either through the deleting administrator or at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.
---
- Biographies of living people
Wikipedia now requires biographies of living people created after 18 March 2010 to indicate at least one source. New unsourced biographies of living people can be proposed for deletion. Unlike standard proposed deletion, these articles must contain a source before the tag can be removed. If the article remains unsourced after 10 days (in contrast to 7 days for a regular proposed deletion), the articles can be deleted. After adding the deletion tag to an article, the user must notify the creator or main contributor. Before adding deletion tags, editors are encouraged (but not required) to make a good faith search for sources.
If the article is deleted, it may be undeleted when an editor is prepared to add a source. The undeletion can be requested either through the deleting administrator or at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.
---
Other suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit ( talk • contribs)
The page protection does not need to and should not last a week. There have been enough stall tactics and delays already. And the suggestion to have another RFC is completely ludicrous and should not be given any further consideration. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 21:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Discussion is taking place about the wording of the sticky proposal at WT:STICKY. Input would be much appreciated, particularly from editors with experience of writing and maintaining policy and dealing with BLP issues. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk contribs 23:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)